Hillary vs Bernie

[Norgy]

Alt-history is fun, but it does have its limitations.

Agreed.  That's why I am talking history.  We did get 8 years of George Bush, and Nader voters were what swung that.  That actually happened.

I tend to agree with Mihali, but I see your point. Now, I am not an American and couldn't vote even in Florida, but there's something refreshing about Sanders' campaign. Angry old Jewish guy throwing the book at the Pharaohs, almost. He's basically Moses. I think they went to high school together, by the way.

Trump is tapping into what European populists have done the past two decades at least. A feeling of disenfranchisement, of the "elites" just doing their thing, but mostly into anger and resentment in a predominantly white working class.

Elections no longer seem to be about who's more suitable to run a country, but rather "I don't want these people".
This also has contributed massively to the near-deaths of most of Europe's established socialist parties. They did very little to fight increasing inequality. In fact, most sat on their hands and let it happen up until 2009. Because growth was decent anyway, and the poor don't vote.

[The Minsky Moment]

No it was very clear in context she was talking about a voluntary buyback program.  She compared it to cash for clunkers which was also voluntary.

The Australian "buyback" program was mandatory (basically the Australian government was compensating you for seized property) and I don't see how it was analogous to Cash for Clunkers.  Unless I totally misunderstood what Cash for Clunkers was all about.

Now if she wants to do a gun version of Cash for Clunkers I'll happily participate.  $4,500 toward an ammo-efficient rifle for trading in one of my beat-up old Mosin Nagants? 

Go back to the original speech:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFNAEYHlCyQ
It is completely clear in context she is talking about a voluntary program.

[viper37]

Alt-history is fun, but it does have its limitations.

Agreed.  That's why I am talking history.  We did get 8 years of George Bush, and Nader voters were what swung that.  That actually happened.

I tend to agree with Mihali, but I see your point. Now, I am not an American and couldn't vote even in Florida, but there's something refreshing about Sanders' campaign. Angry old Jewish guy throwing the book at the Pharaohs, almost. He's basically Moses. I think they went to high school together, by the way.

Trump is tapping into what European populists have done the past two decades at least. A feeling of disenfranchisement, of the "elites" just doing their thing, but mostly into anger and resentment in a predominantly white working class.

Elections no longer seem to be about who's more suitable to run a country, but rather "I don't want these people".
This also has contributed massively to the near-deaths of most of Europe's established socialist parties. They did very little to fight increasing inequality. In fact, most sat on their hands and let it happen up until 2009. Because growth was decent anyway, and the poor don't vote.

Trump and Sanders use the same rethoric but so far, Sanders has refrained from the promotion of violence.  Both target the "establishment", "Wall Street bankers", "the elites disconnected with the people".  Sanders was and still is a fan of Castro.  He is a fan of Corbyn (UK).

The problem with Sanders is not what he says, it's what he's not saying considering the kind of people he admires and respect.

[garbon]

Viper are you drunk?

[Norgy]

The problem with Sanders is not what he says, it's what he's not saying considering the kind of people he admires and respect.

People like Olof Palme and Gro Harlem Brundtland?

[derspiess]

No it was very clear in context she was talking about a voluntary buyback program.  She compared it to cash for clunkers which was also voluntary.

The Australian "buyback" program was mandatory (basically the Australian government was compensating you for seized property) and I don't see how it was analogous to Cash for Clunkers.  Unless I totally misunderstood what Cash for Clunkers was all about.

Now if she wants to do a gun version of Cash for Clunkers I'll happily participate.  $4,500 toward an ammo-efficient rifle for trading in one of my beat-up old Mosin Nagants? 

Go back to the original speech:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFNAEYHlCyQ
It is completely clear in context she is talking about a voluntary program.

She might be, who knows.  But she was very misleading, if not outright dishonest about what the Australians did.  Or she's just totally misinformed on the Australian "buyback". 

Throw all the "context" at me you want, the Australian example does not match up with a voluntary buyback program.  And voluntary buyback programs are significantly different from Cash for Clunkers. At best, she did not think things through here. 

Also she seems to misunderstand what an automatic weapon is.  If you want to ban or restrict something, it helps to understand what it is you are banning/restricting.

[DGuller]

It seems like when it comes to elections, there are two schools of thought about the reasoning for voting or not voting for someone.  Mihali seems to subscribe to the "ultimatum" school of thought:  you better give me a candidate I like, or I will indirectly help make things worse for all of us just to show you I'm serious. 

I subscribe to the "gradualism" school of thought:  if you consistently make the worse choice lose at the elections, eventually candidates will want to make themselves less worse than their opponent.  It might mean you may have to vote for candidates you have distaste for, and that change may be slow in the making, but at least you avoid national catastrophes that set both the country and process back decades.

Is there a clearly better choice?  Yes, of course.  People who subscribe to Mihali's philosophy needs to seriously grow up, and realize that with the adult power to vote comes adult responsibility to not throw tantrums.

[Barrister]

It seems like when it comes to elections, there are two schools of thought about the reasoning for voting or not voting for someone.  Mihali seems to subscribe to the "ultimatum" school of thought:  you better give me a candidate I like, or I will indirectly help make things worse for all of us just to show you I'm serious. 

I subscribe to the "gradualism" school of thought:  if you consistently make the worse choice lose at the elections, eventually candidates will want to make themselves less worse than their opponent.  It might mean you may have to vote for candidates you have distaste for, and that change may be slow in the making, but at least you avoid national catastrophes that set both the country and process back decades.

Is there a clearly better choice?  Yes, of course.  People who subscribe to Mihali's philosophy needs to seriously grow up, and realize that with the adult power to vote comes adult responsibility to not throw tantrums.

There is a time and place for both options.

If you look at both realistic options and decide one is noticeably better, or at least one is noticeably worse, then you should probably pick between those two options.

But when you look at the options and decide that not only do you not like either option, but that there is no meaningful difference between them, then going third party is probably the correct choice.  And a strong third party showing can indeed effect the positions parties take in the future.

I don't care for either candidate in this likely matchup.  But Trump's so incoherent, so unpredictable I don't want him anywhere near the levers of power, so I'd rather a plain old corrupt candidate like Hillary take it.

[Admiral Yi]

But when you look at the options and decide that not only do you not like either option, but that there is no meaningful difference between them, then going third party is probably the correct choice.  And a strong third party showing can indeed effect the positions parties take in the future.

Of course.  But we were talking about Mihalia, who doesn't seem to be 100% indifferent between the two choices.

[The Brain]

I let MB vote for me.

[Barrister]

But when you look at the options and decide that not only do you not like either option, but that there is no meaningful difference between them, then going third party is probably the correct choice.  And a strong third party showing can indeed effect the positions parties take in the future.

Of course.  But we were talking about Mihalia, who doesn't seem to be 100% indifferent between the two choices.

True.  I was trying to let Mihali come to that conclusion himself however.

[derspiess]

LEAVE MIHALI ALONE

[viper37]

Viper are you drunk?

Not this time.  You can not trust socialists, that is all.

[Eddie Teach]

But when you look at the options and decide that not only do you not like either option, but that there is no meaningful difference between them, then going third party is probably the correct choice.  And a strong third party showing can indeed effect the positions parties take in the future.

Of course.  But we were talking about Mihalia, who doesn't seem to be 100% indifferent between the two choices.

He appears to be 100% against both. 

[Capetan Mihali]

Alt-history is fun, but it does have its limitations.

Agreed.  That's why I am talking history.  We did get 8 years of George Bush, and Nader voters were what swung that.  That actually happened.

We got 8 years of B. Clinton and it was Perot voters who swung that according to your logic, and those 8 years were as bad if not worse than the following 8 in creating the conditions for the '8 meltdown.

The Democratic Party and Al Gore failed to convince a number of people to vote for them instead of Nader.  They lost the election, not the Nader voters.  I feel like this is November 2000 all over again... 

The fact that there are only two shitty choices and you have to choose the less shitty one for your vote to count -- that's every American's fault, not just those of us who'd rather not exercise our democratic prerogative for shittiness at all.

You're talking alt-history because you're imagining things would've been different under 8 years of Gore/Lieberman -- even typing that makes me cringe -- in such a way that the financial collapse of 2008 wouldn't have happened.  Exactly like imagining "what-if" the South won the Civil War. 

And like imagining that a victorious Confederacy would have carefully emancipated its slaves, there is no basis in reality for assuming that a Gore presidency would have exercised anymore control over the financial sector than the Bush presidency did.